The stipulation does not merely admit the Congresswoman's statement. The parties, Democrats AND

[Atticus]

Republicans, have stipulated and agreed that, if called as a witness, her testimony "under oath" would be the same as the statement reported. This helps, but will not stop van der Veen's caustic criticism of it as "totally unreliable" because it was not subject to cross examination and she is not subject to perjury concerns.

[TwilightZone]

1. He already stipulated that the call went as described, per Trump.

If he now calls it unreliable, he's just grandstanding.

[Atticus]

2. van der Veen? Grandstanding? Surely you just! nt

[Iliyah]

3. Her statement is a legal document signed under . ..

penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct . . ..

t-rump is pretty much fucked.

He will go down in history as the asshole who attempted a coup, COVID-19 deaths close to 500,000 to date, the worst economy, hated around the world and the USA, etc.

[Atticus]

5. I was not aware her statement had been reduced to a sworn written statement. Are you

sure this is the case?

Not being critical---just asking.

[calguy]

4. van der Veen's caustic criticism will soon be forgotten

He's a lawyer who looks for things to object to. I'm all for getting this thing done, getting Merrick Garland confirmed, and handing this whole thing over to him for a complete and thorough investigation.